Doing My Nutt In

Alan likes to spend his weekends fishing and being shat on by birds.

Scientists. What a bunch of arrogant tosspots. They sit there in their white coats and safety goggles, poking holes in mice and performing unwholesome rituals with test tubes, then have the bare-faced cheek to tell us normal people what to do because they've drawn a graph saying giving ecstasy to horses is dangerous. Well, I've had enough of it. So too have Alan Johnson, part-time Home Secretary and full-time garden gnome impersonator, and this thoroughly agreeable Andrew Wilson chap whose recent Daily Mail column single-handedly exposed the whole scientific community for the godless intellectual despots that they are.

What pushed these two over the edge were the comments made by 'Professor' David Nutt, an interfering moustachioed busybody with a superlative ego complex. Nutt, one of the government's top scientific advisors, had the temerity to dispense some advice which directly contradicted current government policy. "Cannabis is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco", he declared, supposedly citing some meaningless 'evidence' along with it. Having clearly overstepped the well defined boundaries of his advisory role by committing such an act, he then proceeded to throw an indignant hissy fit when Johnson sacked him, bawling on about free speech and the erosion of public trust in science.

Earth to David Nutt: this is the real world, not some sanitised university laboratory chock full of Bunsen burners and teeny tiny little molecules. According to science, drugs are nothing but placid granules of psychoactive substances. But in the real world, these little granules are more than enough to corrupt our otherwise innocent children's impressionable and weak brains. A mere whiff of drugs is more than enough to send a well-adjusted young child spiralling into a torrid frenzy of sex and violence (just illegal drugs that is, alcohol is fine). But the scientists don't tell you that, because they're just staring at the molecules. They don't see the bigger picture.

As Andrew Wilson says, Nutt and his science cronies are arrogant beyond measure, zealously insisting that their 'truth' is the only truth and crusading against anyone brave enough to suggest otherwise. But scientific advice is so laughably inconsistent that you have to wonder who they think they're fooling. Science thinks it has a trump card: the so-called 'scientific method', which is basically a licence for them to change their minds whenever they like, based on some random crackpot turning up at the eleventh hour with some new evidence. How can we possibly be expected to pass legislation based on this constant flip-flopping? That's not what the law is about. MAKE A DECISION, SCIENCE, AND STICK WITH IT.

If scientists always got their way, we'd be living in a hellish version of the world ruled by logic and evidence. The 'irrational' instincts, feelings and fears which have sustained us from the days of witch-burning to our modern day flag-burning would be thrown casually aside like a dead cat. Hearts and minds would be replaced with graphs and lines. This is the vision that David Nutt and his ilk obsess over from the underground caves in which they dwell, emerging only in the dark of night with their subversive attempts to poison our minds by telling us that MMR is safe or that there's no such thing as potatoes. Nice try, professor, but we're more intelligent than you give us credit for. We won't be fooled by your pleas for reason or clearly presented empirical evidence - we KNOW what is right, and it's not in your text books or your peer-reviewed papers. It's right there in our collective conscience, enshrined and enforced by our infallible judicial system. How much more clarity do we need?

The Face of Evil.

Nutt's ridiculous and immoral assertion that we should force-feed babies heroin has revealed the true colour of science - the colour of evil. (It's a murky brown, in case you were wondering). With this latest lie ringing in the public's ears, we are forced to question what other blatant mistruths have been propagated by the scientific community. Global warming, for instance, is very unlikely to have been caused by human pollution. I'd hypothesise that it is instead caused by Jupiter's gravity pushing us closer to the Sun. The lab rats would probably ask me to prove my theory, but guess what, science? They don't make tape measures that long. You can't prove everything, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect. Gravity is just everything being a bit sticky. In Australia, heat doesn't rise, it falls. The list goes on.

Not only was Nutt's claim about drugs being safe wrong, as we all know from watching The Wire, but it was also highly unethical. Andrew Nelson wrote that modern day scientists are nothing more than little lab coat Hitlers, running around punching apes and pumping chemicals into our water supply, unchecked by anything other than their own warped sense of morality, and I agree. Science has been responsible for virtually every aspect of our decaying moral fabric for the last hundred years, from the atomic bomb to internet pornography and transsexuals. And they're still at it, with geneticists across the world playing God by growing ears on mice and creating clones of David Bellamy. Yet these insipid intellectual hooligans wish to be the arbiters of our morality, and tell us what to do and think and insert into ourselves. They've got some nerve.

David Nutt is not a politician. No one voted for him. All he's done is spend a lifetime studying facts, evaluating evidence and drawing pithy conclusions. Alan Johnson, on the other hand, is a remarkable man. 15,000 people voted for him at the last election. That's a lot of people. If you imagined every person that voted for Alan Johnson as a pea, then imagined eating all those peas, you'd be bloody sick of peas when you eventually finished eating them. The question is a simple one and it has a simple answer: who do you trust to tell you what to do? Alan Johnson, of course. David Nutt is a dangerous maniac who doesn't know what he's talking about, and all scientists are the same. What do you have to say to that, science?